The two arrested, Amin Mohammed and Hamdi al-Qudsi, were accused of
“crimes” related to traveling to Syria to join the fight against the
Assad regime. And yet the fact that all we have at this stage are
allegations by police, untested in any court of law, has not stopped the
media from its usual irresponsible sensationalism. The media trial has seen the case linked to an unrelated suicide bombing in Syria, to an unrelated old case regarding the wife of one of the accused, and to anything and everything that paints the accused as violent “extremists.”

On the other hand, mainstream media has diligently and uncritically
reported the authorities’ side of the story, acting, as it does in cases
of this nature, as a mouthpiece of the state. But it is the actions of
the state itself that are much more concerning.

These arrests and passport cancellations come in the context of a
broader crackdown on Muslims wanting to travel to Syria to assist in the
fight against the brutally repressive Assad regime. The crackdown has
bi-partisan political support and began in 2011 with the confiscation of
passports by the AFP and ASIO (a campaign shrouded in secrecy) and
information campaigns seeking to discourage people from traveling to
Syria.

The use of the law to this end has seen a hodge-podge of confused and
arbitrary measures. In August 2012, the Australian Government issued advice to the Muslim community
through the infamous AFP Community Liaison Teams, attempting to stop
Muslims traveling to Syria. The advice claimed that fighting “on either
side” of the Syrian conflict was illegal because of autonomous sanctions
placed on the Syrian regime in May 2011. Surprisingly, it took the
Government over 15 months to get this advice to the community. More
surprisingly, the sanctions say absolutely nothing about fighting with
the rebels, yet were used to claim that fighting “on either side” is an
offence.

In June 2013, some rebel groups in Syria were proscribed
by the Attorney-General as terrorist organizations, partly in order to
facilitate the use of anti-terror legislation for this purpose. The new
line adopted was that if anyone went to Syria to fight they could
potentially engage in criminal activity by becoming involved in groups
proscribed by the Criminal Code.

This was not sufficient, however, as not all rebel groups were
proscribed. Given that young Muslims continued to stream to Syria,
authorities have now resorted to the use of the Foreign Incursions Act 1978
(I suspect some government lawyer must have had a “Why didn’t we think
of this before?” moment). This otherwise dormant piece of legislation –
only 12 people have been convicted under it since 1978 – makes it an
offense to engage in “hostile activities” in a foreign state or to
prepare for the same. Last week’s arrests were made under this
legislation. The government line is that the arrests were simply a
matter of implementing the legislation and has nothing to do with the
government’s position on the Syrian conflict.

Facts suggest otherwise.

Young Jews travel to Israel every year to train in the Israeli
Defense Force (IDF). In some cases they engage in battle and even die,
such as in the case in 2006 of Assaf Namer. Alexander Downer had the following glowing obituary to offer on his death:

“I just want to say how sad I am that an Australian has
been killed, and obviously we extend our condolences to the family and
we’ll provide whatever consular assistance is necessary in these
circumstances. He was in the last month of his national service, so it’s
particularly sad circumstances surrounding his death.”

The reply of authorities to this double-standard – advanced by both
the AFP and the Attorney-General – is that engagement with the IDF is
acceptable because the Foreign Incursions Act makes an
exception for those who travel to train or fight with the “legitimate
military forces of sovereign states” (and thus the purpose of this
bizarre legislation becomes clearer).

But what of the Syrian army? Why is it a criminal offense to fight
with it? Because there’s an embargo placed on the Syrian regime, we’re
told. So it is a matter of government position then. It is the
Government, after all, which decided that the Syrian regime was worthy
of sanctions but that Israel, notwithstanding its brutally oppressive
and inhumane operations, is not. In fact, it’s all about government position. The legislation is merely cover.

When people traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980s to join the jihad against the Soviets, the Foreign Incursions Act was ignored. More recently, when people traveled to Libya to join the rebellion against Gaddafi, the Foreign Incursions Act
was ignored. The difference, of course, is that these rebel forces had
the approval of western governments. The rebels in Syria – particularly
the Islamic elements – do not.

The contradictions do not stop there. AFP Deputy Commissioner Peter Drennan
justified the arrests by lecturing Muslims about how there was “no
justification for violence” and that “violent killing of people should
not be glorified or justified for any reason.” Where was Drennan in the
last decade when Australian troops were deployed to the Muslim world for
this very purpose? More broadly, why is it acceptable for Australian
troops to partake in conflicts overseas under the pretext of supporting
the oppressed, but not so for Muslims? Why are the acts of Australian
troops in conflicts abroad characterized as an ultimate sacrifice to be
revered, but the sacrifice of Muslims in an effort to assist the
oppressed is characterized as criminal conduct to be condemned?

Attorney-General George Brandis
emphasized the alleged threat to Australia’s long-term national
security from people who support or engage in foreign conflicts (the
ones that don’t have government sanction, of course). He expressed
concern about, “the radicalisation of Australians as a result of the
Syrian conflict, particularly those who return to Australia with the
capabilities acquired through fighting or training.” This line has duly
been parroted in media.

Yet the notion that Muslims who go to Syria will become “radicalised”
and constitute a security threat when they return is fantastical
nonsense. It is based in the all-too-familiar Islamophobic, Orientalist
narrative that sees Muslims as sub-human, somehow less civilised, unable
to control themselves and hence needing the intervention of the
civilised white man. Somehow Muslims who go to Syria will lose all
rational capacities and, on their return, will not be able to tell the
difference between a Middle-Eastern war zone and peaceful Australian
suburbia.

Why, it must be asked, are the same concerns about radicalisation and
national security not raised in relation to other Australian citizens
training and fighting in the armies of foreign allies, or indeed
Australian troops going to partake in invasions abroad?

This entire affair is yet another instance of the exceptionalist
treatment of Muslims and the morally-bankrupt politics of the state. All
right-minded people should register loud and clear objection. The
target may be Muslims today, but could be anyone else tomorrow.

What we have here, in essence, is a base form of politics attempting,
from behind the cover of law, to criminalise the loftiest of human
acts: personal sacrifice to assist the oppressed.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of MuslimVillage.com.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.